Total Quality Management, 2013

Vol. 24, No. 8, 933 –944, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2013.791114

Process Management 1-2-3 – a maturity model and diagnostics tool

Peter Cronemyra∗ and Mikael Danielssonb
a
Quality Technology and Management, Linköping University, S-581 83 Linköping, Sweden;
b
Propia AB, Västgötegatan 13 C, 602 21 Norrköping, Sweden

In this article, we provide an insight into Process Management that offers a simple
hands-on method to improve Process Management. Organisations implementing
‘some modern’ management concept sometimes fail or do not achieve the expected
results. From our own industrial experiences, we found that organisations
implementing Process Management sometimes start off on a ‘too-advanced’ level
without having fulfilled the necessary prerequisites. For that purpose, in this article,
we present a Process Management maturity model developed in an environment of
industrial and academic cooperation. In addition to the model, we present a
diagnostics tool that has been developed together with several companies to be used
by organisations to assess their current level of process maturity. By using this, it is
the purpose that organisations could reduce their risk of starting off ‘too high’ and
thus failing in their efforts.
Keywords: Process Management; process maturity; maturity diagnostics

Introduction
Organisations implementing ‘some modern’ management concept sometimes fail or do
not achieve the expected results. According to Beer and Nohria (2000) as many as two-
thirds of all change initiatives have been reported to end in failure, seemingly regardless
of the content of the change (Beer & Nohria, 2000; Sveningsson & Sörgärde, 2007;
Langstrand, 2012). The success of different approaches to adopting and implementing
management ideas such as Process Management was studied by Hellström (2007). Dahl-
gaard, Pettersen, and Dahlgaard-Park (2011) argue that the fundamental principles of
TQM need to be in place for any organisational change effort to be successful. Beer
and Nohria (2000) suggested a combined approach of organisational change initiatives
based on ‘hard’ economic focus and ‘soft’ organisational focus. Dahlgaard-Park (2011)
classify this ‘hard’ focus as a typical Western attitude towards quality management in
terms of being short-termed and result-oriented in contrast to the ‘soft’ focus as a
typical Japanese attitude in terms of being long-termed and process-oriented. For
quality management to be successful, she advocates a combination of the two. From
our own industrial experiences, we found that organisations implementing Process Man-
agement sometimes start off on a ‘too-advanced’ level without having fulfilled the necess-
ary prerequisites. For that purpose, in this article, we present a Process Management
maturity model developed in an environment of industrial and academic cooperation. In
addition to the model, we present a diagnostics tool that has been developed together
with several companies to be used by organisations to assess their current level of
process maturity. By using this, it is the purpose that organisations could reduce their
risk of starting off ‘too high’ and thus failing in their efforts.

∗
Corresponding author. Email: peter.cronemyr@liu.se

# 2013 Taylor & Francis

934 P. Cronemyr and M. Danielsson

Methodology
This development project was conducted during approximately a decade in accordance with
the methodology of a ‘collaborative action inquiry’ (Westlander, 1998), which seeks to inte-
grate the social sciences with organisational knowledge to generate actionable scientific
knowledge. The development work was carried out at a major gas turbine company,
where the first author was employed for 13 years, and several other companies in
Swedish industry, where the two authors have carried out assignments and interventions.
The basic ideas for the process maturity model were described in the first author’s PhD
thesis (Cronemyr, 2007). The model was then further developed and completed with the
diagnostics tool in the second author’s MSc thesis (Bergholtz & Danielsson, 2012).

Theory and previous research

Process Management
Focusing on processes was promoted by Shewhart (1931, 1939) as a way to achieve
quality and satisfied customers. There are many definitions, but most used within the
quality context are similar to that given by Bergman and Klefsjö, which is the one we
choose to use:
A process is a network of activities that are repeated in time, whose objective is to create value
to external or internal customers. (Bergman & Klefsjö, 2010, s. 456)
A process map shows activities as well as relations with suppliers and customers,
something that is not equally obvious by looking at a traditional organisation chart for
an organisation without defined processes. One could argue that an organisation chart
shows ‘what you can do’ while the process maps show ‘what you do’ (Cronemyr,
2007). The first has a tendency to fulfil internal goals, e.g. keeping the budget, while
the latter focuses more on external goals like fulfilling customer satisfaction (Melan,
1995; Cronemyr & Witell, 2010).
The ISO 9001 standard requires an organisation to apply a process approach to three
types of actions: management, product and/or service realisation, and support. Process
owners should be appointed who have a defined responsibility and authority to implement,
maintain, and improve the processes. Documentation of processes should include process
objectives, process map/flow chart, procedures and work instructions, quality plans,
measurements and audit results, and information on on-going and finished improvements.
Goals and measurements of an organisation’s processes are often gathered and presented
in a Balanced Scorecard (Kaplan & Norton, 1992).
The importance of adopting a process view and continuously improving processes has
led to the creation of the Process Management philosophy. Bergman and Klefsjö (2010)
trace the origins of Process Management back to TQM authorities Shewhart and Juran.
Harrington (1991) described the Process Management methodology used at IBM as the
following steps:
(1) Organising for improvement
(2) Understanding the process
(3) Streamlining
(4) Measurements and controls
(5) Continuous improvement
Process Management has been a popular topic in the management literature for at least
two decades (Hellström, 2006). In 2002, Michael Hammer – the creator of the ‘BPR
 Total Quality Management 935

manifesto’ (as in Business Process Re-engineering, see Hammer & Champy, 1993) –
argued that ‘Six Sigma should be a part of Process Management, not the other way
around’ (Hammer, 2002, p. 32). The question of how to integrate Six Sigma and
Process Management remains, though.
Often there is confusion about processes and Process Management. Several failed
attempts of introducing Process Management have been caused by the lack of understand-
ing of the basic ideas behind the words, e.g. systems thinking, customer focus and theory
of variation, as well as the consequences for management activities (Bergman & Klefsjö,
2010). It may be difficult to break the organisational thinking patterns when the core pro-
cesses are to be defined, even for persons with ‘process awareness’ (Rentzhog, 1998).
‘Process awareness’ or ‘process thinking’, ‘enables full participation in the change
process and a way of establishing current and future performance levels’ (Oakland &
Tanner, 2007). Oakland and Tanner (2007) conclude that ‘process management sits at
the heart of a successful change programme’.
In research articles (see e.g. Henderson & Evans, 2000; Pande, Neuman, & Cavanagh,
2000; Goldstein, 2001; Antony & Banuelas, 2002; Sandholm & Sörqvist, 2002; Schön,
2006; Cronemyr, 2007), ‘management commitment’ is one of the most commonly men-
tioned success criteria for implementing new management ideas like Process Management
and Six Sigma. However, there are few articles mentioning how to practically achieve
management commitment in order to implement Process Management successfully
(Cronemyr, 2007). Beer (2003) argues that there is often a gap between the management
rhetoric about their intentions for TQM and the reality of the implementation of the
concept within the company.

Process maturity
By developing and continuously improving processes an organisation can reach
different maturity levels, as given e.g. by the capability maturity model (CMM)
developed by the Software Engineering Institute, from the original ideas by Philip
Crosby, described in Paulk, Curtis, Chrissis, and Weber (1993). CMM mainly focuses
on software development, but there are other maturity models with a business process
focus.
Harrington (1991) describes a model for process qualification which is similar to a
process maturity model. However, it does not describe any specific guidelines how to
improve from one qualification level to the next. The first qualification level can also be
considered to be fairly high, which would leave several of our studied processes and organ-
isations outside the scale. The qualification levels are numbered from 6 to 1 where 1 is the
highest qualification level. The levels are (Harrington, 1991):

(6) Unknown: This level is assigned to all processes which are not yet assessed.
(5) Understood: At this level, the process design is understood and operates according
to prescribed documentation.
(4) Effective: The process is systematically measured, streamlining has started, and
the end-customer expectations are met.
(3) Efficient: The process is streamlined and more efficient.
(2) Error-free: The process is highly effective (error-free) and efficient. The process is
also in statistical control.
(1) World-class: The process is world-class and continues to improve. The process is
also highly flexible.
936 P. Cronemyr and M. Danielsson

McCormack (2007) describes another maturity model which focuses on whole organis-
ations instead of separate processes. The maturity levels are considered to be stages
which organisations need to pass though in an evolutionary change process. The stages
solely focus on the balance between functions and processes in the organisation, and do
not describe concrete criteria for when a stage is fulfilled or not.
There are four levels in this model (McCormack, 2007):
. Ad hoc: The processes are unstructured and poorly defined. Traditional functions are
in focus.
. Defined: The basic processes are defined and mapped. A process aspect is added to
the organisation, but functions are still in main focus.
. Linked: Process Management is now a strategic issue. Goals are set for processes and
shared across functions.
. Integrated: Process Management is now a part of the organisational culture. Struc-
tures and jobs are based on processes and processes are considered equal to tra-
ditional functions.
Wheeler (1997) describes a model with different process states, which is similar to a
maturity model. This model is mainly based on statistical process control. By describing
a process according to whether it is in statistical control or not (called the process dimen-
sion) and whether the results meet the customer’s expectations or not (called the product
dimension), four different states are created.
The first state, where the process is not in control and does not meet the customer’s
expectations, is called the state of chaos. There is a much special-cause variation in this
state and the process is constantly changing. Due to this, it is very difficult to improve
the process, and attempts at doing so often distort the process even more.
The second state, where the process is not in control but meets the customer’s expec-
tations, is called the brink of chaos. The customer’s expectations are, in this state, met by
special efforts and modifications, not by following the process. However, it demands a lot
of work, and the work is most often reactive.
The third stage, where the process is in control but does not meet the customer’s expec-
tations, is called the threshold state. By removing all special-cause variation, i.e. focusing
on the process instead of the product, the process will become in control. If the customer’s
expectations are still not met, the process can be improved or redesigned.
The fourth and last stage, where the process is in control and the customer’s expec-
tations are met, is called the ideal state. By constantly focusing on the process and elim-
inating special-cause variation as it emerges, the process will remain in the ideal state. If
not, changing conditions will erode the process and the state is lost.

Diagnostics tools
There is very limited information on existing assessment and diagnostics tools. The matur-
ity models described above provides either very complex or very simple methods to assess
to which level in the model a certain process or organisation belongs. CMM (Paulk et al.,
1993) requires a full-scale audit by an assessment team to assess a process. Harrington’s
(1991) qualification model depends on the process owners who apply for an upgrade of his
or her process along with proof of meeting all criteria for the level. McCormack (2007)
assesses an organisation by conducting a survey among 20 – 30 key-informants, and com-
piling the results to a score between 1 and 5. Each maturity level corresponds to an interval
in the same scale.
 Total Quality Management 937

Proposed model
From on our own industrial experiences at several companies, and based on previous
research on Process Management, we present a new Process Management maturity
model and a diagnostics tool. We found that implementation failures were often caused
not by the implemented method being poor, but ‘too high up on the maturity scale’, i.e.
the organisation not being mature enough. By applying the newly developed model and
diagnostics tool, organisations can reduce the risk of failure.

Process Management 1-2-3

The basis for the Process Management model was developed at Siemens Industrial Tur-
bines in Finspång, Sweden and first presented in Cronemyr (2007). The company –
first under the owners ALSTOM and later Siemens – had implemented Six Sigma as
process improvement methodology. The first author was one of the first Black Belts and
one of the very few who participated in the company’s Six Sigma introduction twice,
under two different company names. The first author, who also had a previous background
in Quality and Process Management activities at Saab, ABB and university, realised that
the rather advanced process improvement method of Six Sigma required established pro-
cesses to work. Otherwise it would fail. It did so in most departments and divisions where
processes had not been established but a few divisions started all-over, established pro-
cesses and then introduced Six Sigma once more. It was a success (Cronemyr, 2007).
When the success was a fact, the company tried to share the best practice and use the
same strategy at other departments. It was then realised that a prerequisite for establishing
processes was missing; process awareness in management. In some departments, manage-
ment workshops were conducted to train managers in systems thinking and Process Man-
agement principles. After that, they could start establishing processes. By that time, Lean
had been introduced at some divisions and integrated in the process work in a qualitative
approach. Some divisions stayed on the more advanced quantitative approach and intro-
duced Six Sigma successfully. One division later continued with the next step of basing
decisions on facts and utilising control variables identified in Six Sigma projects, by imple-
menting Statistical Process Control for major business processes. The model that had been
developed mainly at one company – for several years – was later used at several other
companies in Process Management consultancy assignments and interventions, see
Figure 1.
The model is a framework for implementing and utilising Process Management in the
following steps (steps 1-2-3 are indicated in the figure):

(0) Establishing process awareness in management,

(1) Process mapping and development,
(2) Process analysis and improvement, and
(3) Process control and agility.

By taking these steps, more advanced maturity levels are reached;see below.

Process maturity model

The basic idea for the process maturity model, see Figure 2, was mainly developed from the
first author’s experiences in implementing Process Management in organisations and CMM
(Paulk et al., 1993), ideas about a maturity model to describe the progress. It was then further
938 P. Cronemyr and M. Danielsson

Figure 1. Process Management 1-2-3 (Cronemyr, 2007).

Figure 2. The process maturity model (Bergholtz & Danielsson, 2012). When a process has reached
maturity level N, you need to take step N, in order to reach maturity level N + 1. Hence there are
three steps and four levels.

developed by several practical studies and by including the work of other authors e.g. Har-
rington (1991), Wheeler (1997), and McCormack (2007). The main contribution of our
maturity model is that it provides a natural development path that organisation can follow
by its close link to ‘Process Management 1-2-3’ and its focus on success factors for achieving
sustainable process work. This approach is not the same as McCormack’s (2007), since it
does not focus on the balance between functions and processes. Our approach, rather, sees
functions and processes as two necessary but separate dimensions of an organisation. The
levels in our model are also adapted to include the whole range from a complete lack of
process thinking to fully adapted and controlled processes. This to make it useful in a
wider spectrum of cases than the model described by Harrington (1991).
In order to make the concept of process maturity possible to use by organisations who
want to improve their processes, the model focuses on separate processes instead of whole
 Total Quality Management 939

organisations. The organisational focus used by McCormack (2007) can only show an
average oversight of all of the organisations processes and hence not any detailed infor-
mation. However, organisational factors have major impact on each process within the
organisation, and for the lower maturity levels where there are no established processes,
these factors are dominant. This is similar to Wheeler’s (1997) approach, where the
focus shifts from the product perspective to the process perspective when processes are
established.
The model consists of four maturity levels and one ‘pre-level’, which describes the
state when none of the maturity levels are reached. One level acts as the foundation for
the next, and the model thereby describes natural steps for implementing Process Manage-
ment. An illustration of the maturity model is shown in Figure 2 and is described in short in
the following text.

Pre-level – business need

This level is not considered to be a part of the maturity scale, since it is not a foundation for
the other levels. The pre-level is rather considered to symbolise a lack of maturity, when
none of the maturity levels are fulfilled. There exist no processes, the organisation is func-
tionally oriented and there is no process awareness within management. The organisation
does not have the necessary prerequisites to establish processes.

Level 1 – awareness
At this level, the organisation has gained an awareness of the usefulness of working with
processes, mainly at a management level. There is no fully established process at this level,
but there might be some process influences in the way of working. The awareness is
necessary to obtain the commitment needed to establish sustainable processes.

Level 2 – established
At this level, the process is fully established in the organisation. There may be one or more
processes established, but this maturity level and levels above deal with the maturity of
one process at a time. The process is defined with all required constituents, documented
and used in practice. For the process to be sustainable, it is also required that management
is active and actually gives the process attention and demands results from the process.
Furthermore, there need to be established structures to maintain and update the process.

Level 3 – improved
At this level, the focus switches from the process map to process data. The process needs to
be fully established in order to improve it. Otherwise there is no stable baseline from which
to improve. Improvements should further be based on facts, which require developed and
customer focused measurements and structured methods for conducting the improvement.
In addition to measuring results, controls should be developed and established.

Level 4 – adapted
For a process to be adapted, it needs to work in closer collaboration with the customer, be
more flexible and more proactive. By implementing statistical process control, it is poss-
ible to react to changes much sooner and to tune the process in a better way. The process
940 P. Cronemyr and M. Danielsson

should also be able to adapt to specific customer requirements by working closer to the
customer or even including the customer in the process. This requires high commitment
and understanding by everyone who uses the process.

Diagnostics tool
In order to make the process maturity model more useful in practice, a diagnostics tool was
developed. The purpose of the tool is to determine which level in the maturity model a
certain process fulfils. To know the current status of the process is the basis for future
improvements. The focus is hence not to get the most accurate diagnosis of which level
a process fulfils, but to compile a comprehensive overview of the process maturity in a
quick and resource-efficient way. This differs from the methods used in CMM (Paulk
et al., 1993) and by Harrington (1991), which have a higher focus on accuracy, but also
require a lot more work than the suggested method. It is also much richer in information
than McCormack’s (2007) method, which makes the results from the diagnosis more
useful for the examined process. The first step towards creating our diagnostics tool
was to develop the model further and break down the levels to more detailed components.
From the practical studies, basic process theory and Process Management models, e.g.
Harrington’s (1991) model used at IBM, eight process maturity categories were derived.
The categories are:
. Management of the organisation which describes the process awareness and com-
mitment within the management,
. Way of working treats how the processes and the process ‘thinking’ actually are
applied in practice,
. Layout of the process deals with the basic constituents that defines a process,
. Documentation deals with how the process is described and how this description is
used in practice,
. Management of the process treats how management and administration of the
process are organised,
. Users of the process deals with the understanding and commitment from the people
who actually use the process,
. Measurements describe how the process is controlled and how the results are
measured, and finally
. Improvements describe how the process is maintained, updated, and improved.
These eight categories were then used to describe the maturity model in a new and more
detailed way. Each maturity level was divided according to the categories and the state of
the category was described for each level. These descriptions can also be seen as the cri-
teria to determine whether a maturity level is achieved or not. For some of the maturity
level-category combinations there are no criteria defined. When that is the case, the
same criteria as for the previous level apply. If there is no previous level, as is the case
for level 1, there are no criteria to be met within the category to achieve the maturity
level, see Figure 3.
To determine if a process fulfils the criteria for each level, two separate questionnaires
were developed. One aimed at persons who manage the process, e.g. process owners, and
one aimed at process users. This to get more than one perspective of the process and to be
able to cover all necessary aspects needed to describe the process. The questionnaires have
about 40 questions each and cover several aspects within each of the different categories.
The questions have pre-determined answering alternatives to make sure that the
 Total Quality Management 941

Figure 3. The detailed process maturity model, used as a basis for the diagnostics tool (Bergholtz &
Danielsson, 2012).

interpretation of the answers can be made in an un-biased way. The detailed questionnaires
are not further presented in this article.
The interpretation of the questionnaires is made with a template that indicates which
answers are required or not accepted for each category and maturity level. Since the results
of this type of questionnaire are discrete variables, it would not be correct to construct a
mean from results of an extensive number of questionnaires. Instead, we found it suitable
to hand out the questionnaires to a small number of persons and then compile the separate
results in a combined overview. The total process maturity is determined by the category
which is considered to be the weakest link. With this approach, the overview will contrib-
ute with necessary information to plan and prioritise future improvement initiatives in
order to increase the total process maturity. An example is given in Figure 4.
The example shows an overview of the results from three respondents for a surveyed
process at an industrial organisation. As seen, most of the answers fulfil the requirements
for level 2 for the different categories. However, there are some categories, e.g. Measure-
ments, Management of the process, and Management of the organisation, which do not

Figure 4. An example of the overview from questionnaires about a process (Bergholtz & Danielsson,
2012).
942 P. Cronemyr and M. Danielsson

seem to reach as high as the other categories. Since the total process maturity is determined
by the weakest link, the process overall is considered to reach level 1. These areas are
hence where future improvements should focus in order to increase the total process
maturity. It can also be interesting to display the spread of the answers within the cat-
egories. In the category Users of the process all three respondents indicate different matur-
ity level. This shows that there probably are very different levels of understanding and
commitment among the users of the process.
The model and diagnostics tool were used in practice with five different processes at
three different organisations in the study conducted by Bergholtz and Danielsson (2012).
The surveyed organisations considered the results to be very accurate and useful for future
improvements of the involved processes.

Discussion
Research limitations and implications
This research is based on applications in a typical Scandinavian management culture, a so-
called fulfilment-oriented culture, which is characterised as egalitarian and person-
oriented (Trompenaars, 1993). Whether the proposed process maturity model will work
in other cultures and if so how to organise the work in that type of setting remains to inves-
tigate. Furthermore, given that this study was conducted as action research, there are limit-
ations concerning generalisability but, as generalisability is not the main purpose of action
research, the outcome of the applications were successful for the participating organis-
ations in this particular project. Given these limitations, more applications in other settings
would be valuable in providing more generalisable results.
Still, it is our opinion that this article fills a gap in management research literature
between ‘success criteria’ and ‘practical tools and results’ for implementing Process Man-
agement. More research is needed on how to assess process maturity and where different
QM tools fit and where they do not in a Process Management context.

Managerial implications
Organisations implementing Process Management sometimes start off on a ‘too-advanced’
level, with some of the more advanced tools and techniques without having fulfilled the
necessary prerequisites. In fact, it is often unknown to the organisations that there are
necessary prerequisites and what these are. The Process Management maturity model
and the diagnostics tool presented in this article will help organisations to reduce their
risk of starting off ‘too high’ and thus failing in their efforts.
This model and tool have been developed together with several companies which ben-
efitted from their use. One reason it is appreciated by users is that the diagnostics tool is
considered ‘objective’ by them because the organisations perform the assessment them-
selves, without any direct influence from consultants. Consultants are often considered
‘subjective’ when they suggest appropriate actions for the company. Of course no one
is objective, but this tool gives a hint on where to start and what actions could be the
logical next step for a company wanting to implement Process Management. The
outcome is used to plan and prioritise actions. Some companies have also suggested
using it as a follow-up tool.
It should be emphasised though, that this is not a ‘certification’ or ‘award’ tool, like
e.g. Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Award (see e.g. Bergman & Klefsjö, 2010).
The main purpose of this tool is not to certify organisations, but to improve processes.
 Total Quality Management 943

Process Management is a way of organising quality work in order to improve customer

satisfaction and reduce internal costs, and thus improve company profit. It is our opinion
that the presented model will help in that effort, by providing guidance on appropriate
actions based on process maturity.

References
Antony, J., & Banuelas, R. (2002). Key ingredients for the effective implementation of Six Sigma
programme. Measuring Business Excellence, 6, 20 –27.
Beer, M. (2003). Why total quality management programs do not persist: The role of management
quality and implications for leading a TQM transformation. Decision Sciences, 34(4),
623 –642.
Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (2000). Cracking the code of change. Harvard Business Review, 78(3),
133 –141.
Bergholtz, A., & Danielsson, M. (2012). Utveckling av en processmognadsmodell med tillhörande
diagnosverktyg (Master thesis, Quality Technology and Management, Department of
Management and Engineering, Linköping University).
Bergman, B., & Klefsjö, B. (2010). Quality from customer needs to customer satisfaction (3rd ed.).
Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Cronemyr, P. (2007). Six Sigma management (PhD thesis, Division of Quality Sciences, Department
of Technology Management and Economics, Chalmers University of Technology).
Cronemyr, P., & Witell, L. (2010). Changing from a product to a process perspective for service
improvements in a manufacturing company. The TQM Journal, 22(1), 26 –40.
Dahlgaard, J., Pettersen, J., & Dahlgaard-Park, S.M. (2011). Quality and lean health care: A system
for assessing and improving the health of healthcare organisations. Total Quality Management
& Business Excellence, 22(6), 673 –689.
Dahlgaard-Park, S.M. (2011). The quality movement: Where are you going? Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence, 22(5), 493–516.
Goldstein, M.D. (2001). Six Sigma programme success factors. Six Sigma Forum Magazine, 1,
36 –45.
Hammer, M. (2002). Process management and the future of Six Sigma. MIT Sloan Management
Review, 43e(2), 26–32.
Hammer, M., & Champy, J. (1993). Reengineering the corporation: A manifesto for business revo-
lution. New York, NY: Harper Business.
Harrington, H.J. (1991). Business process improvement. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Hellström, A. (2006). Conceptions of Process Management – an analysis of the discourse in the
management literature. In The proceedings from QMOD, Liverpool.
Hellström, A. (2007). On the diffusion and adoption of management ideas: Findings from six empiri-
cal studies in the quality field (PhD thesis, Division of Quality Sciences. Chalmers University
of Technology, Göteborg).
Henderson, K.M., & Evans, J.R. (2000). Successful implementation of Six Sigma: Benchmarking
General Electric Company. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 7, 260–281.
Kaplan, R.S., & Norton, D.P. (1992). The Balanced Scorecard – measures that drive performance.
Harvard Business Review, January –February, 70(1), 71– 79.
Langstrand, J. (2012). Exploring organizational translation. A case study of changes toward Lean
Production (PhD thesis, Quality Technology and Management. Department of
Management and Engineering. Linköping University).
McCormack, K. (2007). Business process maturity. Raleigh, NC: DRK Research.
Melan, E.H. (1995). Process Management – a systems approach to total quality. Portland:
Productivity Press.
Oakland, J.S., & Tanner, S. (2007). Successful change management. Total Quality Management &
Business Excellence, 18(1– 2), 1–19.
Pande, P.S., Neuman, R.P., & Cavanagh, R.R. (2000). The Six Sigma way: How GE, Motorola and
other top companies are honing their performance. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill
Professional.
Paulk, M.C., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M.B., & Weber, C.V. (1993). Capability maturity model, version
1.1. IEEE Software, 10(4), 18 –27.
944 P. Cronemyr and M. Danielsson

Rentzhog, O. (1998). Processorientering – en grund för morgondagens organisationer. Lund:

Studentlitteratur.
Sandholm, L., & Sörqvist, L. (2002). 12 requirements for Six Sigma success. Six Sigma Forum
Magazine, 2, 17 –22.
Schön, K. (2006). Implementing Six Sigma in a non-American culture. International Journal of Six
Sigma and Competitive Advantage, 2(4), 404 –428.
Shewhart, W.A. (1931). Economic control of quality and manufactured product. New York, NY:
Van Nostrand.
Shewhart, W.A. (1939). Statistical method from the viewpoint of quality control. Washington, DC:
Graduate School of the Department of Agriculture.
Sveningsson, S., & Sörgärde, N. (2007). Organisationsförändring: från ingenjörskonst till tolkning.
In M. Alvesson & S. Svenningsson (Eds.), Organisationer, ledning och processer. Lund:
Studentlitteratur.
Trompenaars, F. (1993). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding cultural diversity in business.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Professional.
Westlander, G. (1998). Aktionsforskning [in Swedish; English translation: Action research]
(Research report). Stockholm: Royal Institute of Technology.
Wheeler, D. (1997). The four possibilities for any process. Chico, CA: Quality Digest.
Copyright of Total Quality Management & Business Excellence is the property of Routledge
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without
the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.